I believe in gay marriage

[Virago]

Would you like me to squeal like a pig - and hold your banjo...?

[98tls]

Would you like me to squeal like a pig - and hold your banjo...?

Give me 20 minutes to put my lippy on.

[Berries]

Lippy on the pig? Now that is pure Oamaru chic.

[ducatilover]

fulfilled? :-) Or just filled?


Are some of you making assumptions about gay sex, or speaking from experience?
I've had three Hondas, so I can comment.

actually, some doctor insisted he needed to probe my bum because of lower back pain that turned out to be nerve issues, oh well, not me with stink fingers!

I do very much doubt having penis sized object up ones bottom is very comfortable anyway.

[Drew]

I do very much doubt having penis sized object up ones bottom is very comfortable anyway.

Didn't bother yo mama.:lol:

[pzkpfw]

The irony is that the biggest arseholes are often the people who are anti-gay.


(Irony #2 : Catholic priests telling everyone what's "normal" for humans to do.)

[mashman]

I do very much doubt having penis sized object up ones bottom is very comfortable anyway.

Do you ever wish you hadn't just had that shit? I would imagine that you get to have that shit, in a consistent size and a varied length, many times per second :blink:

[unstuck]

I do very much doubt having penis sized object up ones bottom is very comfortable anyway. [/SIZE][/SIZE]

Amyl nitrate(rush)= Nice and relaxed.:bleh::niceone:

[BoristheBiter]

Amyl nitrate(rush)= Nice and relaxed.:bleh::niceone:

or poppers if you prefer.

[Winston001]

I'm not bothered about gay marriage but for the sake of argument, it does seem a strange idea.

Marriage is a ceremonial bond which has existed in all human societies way way back into prehistory. It is a bond loaded with moral/legal rights and obligations. It is also exclusively a bond between a man and women.

The reason why humans developed the concept of marriage was to reflect pair-bonding of parents. That gave a mother the security of knowing her husband would stick around to feed and protect her. The father could be reasonably certain his wife wasn't being impregnated by others. The children were protected and secure having two parents to look after them, given that human offspring take the longest of any animal to reach maturity.

So...marriage between two humans who cannot conceive children between them is illogical. It makes no sense. Such people can choose a Civil Union and surely that answers their need for social recognition.

Just sayin...

[Madness]

So...marriage between two humans who cannot conceive children between them is illogical. It makes no sense. Such people can choose a Civil Union and surely that answers their need for social recognition.

Just sayin...

What of the Gays who have parented children prior to becoming gay? What of the Gays who adopt? What of the women who grew up as "normal" girls, dreaming of one day becoming a bride & being married?

Surely if Civil Union is already answering their need for social recognition there wouldn't be a bill before parliament & we wouldn't be 35 pages into this discussion.

Just saying.

[BoristheBiter]

What of the Gays who have parented children prior to becoming gay? What of the Gays who adopt? What of the women who grew up as "normal" girls, dreaming of one day becoming a bride & being married?

Surely if Civil Union is already answering their need for social recognition there wouldn't be a bill before parliament & we wouldn't be 35 pages into this discussion.

Just saying.

so then just change the CU.

just saying.

[Madness]

so then just change the CU...

To relect the status as being Married? Brilliant idea.

[BoristheBiter]

To relect the status as being Married? Brilliant idea.

No it's a CU not marriage.

[HenryDorsetCase]

So...marriage between two humans who cannot conceive children between them is illogical. It makes no sense. Such people can choose a Civil Union and surely that answers their need for social recognition.

Just sayin...

incorrect, but thanks for playing. ;)

Therefore any heterosexual couple who cannot or choose not to conceive offspring are denied the right to get married? Shirley not!

The fundamental issue here (as I have said before) is simple fairness: there is no good reason that based purely on the sexual orientation of the parties involved there is one sort of societal recognition of a relationship over another.

Anyone choosing to have their relationship "blessed"* by society by way of civil recognition: you get married. If that isn't for you (and it certainly is not for me: as I say to my partner of 30 years "But what if I get a better offer?") then you can live in "sin".* and have no change of ownership papers and all that palaver. Easy.


*yes I carefully chose those words to get some of the religious and homophobic nutters frothing at the mouth (and not in the good way)

[Madness]

No it's a CU not marriage.

Then proceed to the start and do not collect $200.

[Kickaha]

So...marriage between two humans who cannot conceive children between them is illogical. It makes no sense. Such people can choose a Civil Union and surely that answers their need for social recognition.

So that applies to couples where one of them is infertile or had a vasectomy, tubal ligation or just doesn't want children then?

[HenryDorsetCase]

Marriage is a ceremonial bond which has existed in all human societies way way back into prehistory. It is a bond loaded with moral/legal rights and obligations. It is also exclusively a bond between a man and women.

The reason why humans developed the concept of marriage was to reflect pair-bonding of parents. That gave a mother the security of knowing her husband would stick around to feed and protect her. The father could be reasonably certain his wife wasn't being impregnated by others. The children were protected and secure having two parents to look after them, given that human offspring take the longest of any animal to reach maturity.


Even if that is true (and it may well be) and assuming that it is, the question is whether or not that is relevant now to the 21st Century Schizoid Man. What "marriage" means is a moving target even from the middle ages to today: the whole "wife is chattel" thing: and in other societies it means different things (most notably in societies blighted by religion: Muslims, Hindus, arranged marriages, burkas and whatnot). So the question is thus not "has the concept of marriage evolved: because it self evidently has. The question is "should it evolve further"? And my answer to that question is unequivocal: Yes.

[pzkpfw]

I'm married. And she sure as heck didn't promise to "honour and obey".

[oldrider]

Even if that is true (and it may well be) and assuming that it is, the question is whether or not that is relevant now to the 21st Century Schizoid Man. What "marriage" means is a moving target even from the middle ages to today: the whole "wife is chattel" thing: and in other societies it means different things (most notably in societies blighted by religion: Muslims, Hindus, arranged marriages, burkas and whatnot). So the question is thus not "has the concept of marriage evolved: because it self evidently has. The question is "should it evolve further"? And my answer to that question is unequivocal: Yes.

Your posts would "seem" to indicate that you may possibly have a stake in the outcomes of all this ... or am I just imagining that? :confused:

Has marriage evolved or simply run it's course, (good question) the majority participants of marriage certainly don't seem to hold it in much respect today!

How much tinkering would it take to make Civil Union legally equal to current marriage, in the eyes of the law? Could that be a solution?

This isn't going to go away until it's fixed to the homosexual fraternities satisfaction, that's for sure!

[unstuck]

:devil2::devil2:

[Maha]

I went to a gay wedding once, went up to the bar to get a drink and this chap asked if he could push my stool in?...I looked around with a rye grin...there where no stools...:(

[BoristheBiter]

Then proceed to the start and do not collect $200.

Sorry had a slow day. it wasn't my best work.

[Winston001]

Shirley not!



I told you not to call me Shirley!

[HenryDorsetCase]

Your posts would "seem" to indicate that you may possibly have a stake in the outcomes of all this ... or am I just imagining that? :confused:



Sure I do, in that I am often asked to help sort it out for people. But the heterosexual ones are WAY harder than the homosexual ones: The "his kids, her kids, our kids" scenario plus the once bitten twice shy scenario.

In my experience the same sex couple splits are just as difficult as the others but usually there are no children involved. But sometimes ther are. The worst one was the same sex female couple who split, and one partner moved in with a male. Their property issues were easy but it took four months to sort out the pets.

[BoristheBiter]

Even if that is true (and it may well be) and assuming that it is, the question is whether or not that is relevant now to the 21st Century Schizoid Man. What "marriage" means is a moving target even from the middle ages to today: the whole "wife is chattel" thing: and in other societies it means different things (most notably in societies blighted by religion: Muslims, Hindus, arranged marriages, burkas and whatnot). So the question is thus not "has the concept of marriage evolved: because it self evidently has. The question is "should it evolve further"? And my answer to that question is unequivocal: Yes.

I would say no it hasn't run it's course due to the massive debate about gay marriage and the fact that same sex couples want to get married.
Yes it evolves but at the core it is still a religious ceremony with a legal definition.

If I was in a same sex relationship I would be pushing for TPTB to change the CU so I would have something that was mine and all the haters could have their marriage after all it's only a really expensive dinner where your family and friend try to eat and drink as much as possible and you get stuck with the check.

[HenryDorsetCase]

If I was in a same sex relationship I would be pushing for TPTB to change the CU so I would have something that was mine and all the haters could have their marriage after all it's only a really expensive dinner where your family and friend try to eat and drink as much as possible and you get stuck with the check.

Shirley you're doing it wrong? Dont the brides parents pay for the wedding and the grooms parents pay for the grog? I thought that was how it worked?

[BoristheBiter]

Shirley you're doing it wrong? Dont the brides parents pay for the wedding and the grooms parents pay for the grog? I thought that was how it worked?

Like you said, it evolves.

But you have touched on a point there, how would that work with same sex?
two guys, no food but a massive piss up, two girls heaps of food but no booze, you would have to have a double wedding.

[Madness]

Is it not optional to have religion involved in a wedding ceremony currently?

[Winston001]

How much tinkering would it take to make Civil Union legally equal to current marriage, in the eyes of the law? Could that be a solution?



You nailed it John. :niceone: As far as I know the only difference is that a civil union couple cannot jointly adopt a child. So lets allow that.


What "marriage" means is a moving target even from the middle ages to today...

So the question is not "has the concept of marriage evolved?" because it self evidently has. The question is "should it evolve further"?

Well said. No argument.

I guess what bothers me (in my devils advocate chair) is there is no public discussion on the fundamental issues. What is marriage exactly, what does it mean in the modern age? If its become meaningless then why would gay people want to embrace such an outdated concept anyway? Many straight people already reject the idea of marriage.

But if we are going to turn the core concept of heterosexual marriage on its head (because we are liberal and inclusive), aren't we destroying the institution itself? Being married become a valueless anachronism.

[Edbear]

I guess what bothers me (in my devils advocate chair) is there is no public discussion on the fundamental issues. What is marriage exactly, what does it mean in the modern age? If its become meaningless then why would gay people want to embrace such an outdated concept? Many straight people reject the idea of marriage.

You raise an interesting point. When increasingly couples are simply moving in together and foregoing formal marriage, why is it such an issue? Could it be that homosexuals are trying to legitimise their relationships? The comments throughout this thread on what marriage is or is not make you wonder why anyone would want to get married.

The fact is though, that still the majority of people believe that formal marriage is different and weddings are still a big part of modern society with all that they symbolise.

Having been married for 35 years this Oct. my wife and I are firm supporters of formal marriage and believe we have the best life can offer. Others who have bad experiences that have lead to marriages that are a battle ground or ended in messy divorce may feel differently.

Relationships are not always easy regardless with whom they are and require work and compromise and communication skills.

While a "piece of paper" does not a marriage make, I can vouch for the fact that getting married is a special and unique act that does make a difference.

The OP hardly comes across as anything other than dead straight. Interesting how the thread has gone on so long about homosexuality.

[oldrider]

As far as I know the only difference is that a civil union couple cannot jointly adopt a child.

HenryDorsetCase? ... Is that a correct statement in your understanding/interpretation/experience between Civil Union and marriage?

And is this also the case for heterosexual couples that opt for Civil Union? Genuine question here!

[Edbear]

HenryDorsetCase? ... Is that a correct statement in your understanding/interpretation/experience between Civil Union and marriage?

And is this also the case for heterosexual couples that opt for Civil Union? Genuine question here!

That's an interesting question. But why would a hetero couple go for a civil union instead anyway?

[tigertim20]

Is it not optional to have religion involved in a wedding ceremony currently?

haha of course its optional. my wedding wasnt religious in the least, it was about us expressing, and self defining our relationship. exactly why I support gay marriage. Everyone should be able to self define their relationship, it should never be 'you can self define your relationship, however you want but you cant use the word marriage because you are gay' - it just seems ridiculous.

[avgas]

Is it not optional to have religion involved in a wedding ceremony currently?
Yep.
Ours was simply a registration. In the eyes of the law that is still marriage.


But I still like the idea of calling it "Pre-Divorce". Then the gays can have it if they want it.

[Madness]

Interesting how the thread has gone on so long about homosexuality.

Those in the homophobe camp have made this thread about homosexuality when in reality this debate is all about equality.

[avgas]

That's an interesting question. But why would a hetero couple go for a civil union instead anyway?
Name a civil hetero couple.

[avgas]

If its become meaningless then why would gay people want to embrace such an outdated concept anyway?
I wan't....

- Side valves on a motorbike
- A 650 bonnie
- A bultaco

None of these things are smart things to ride/own. But since I have never had them I want them.

Gays have never had Marriage - for some reason they want it. Why save them from it?

[Berries]

Interesting how the thread has gone on so long about homosexuality.
Could there be a clue in the thread title perchance?


Name a civil hetero couple.
I haven't punched my wife in the mouth for nearly a month. How civil do you want?

And that's a female wife by the way.

[oldrider]

Name a civil hetero couple.

Well, I can't but I remember that there have been examples of couples presented as Heterosexual's that had opted for Civil Unions rather than getting married.

Maybe it was all just part of a "rentamob" sales pitch by homo TV or something just after the law was changed by the Labour government.

It's a pity there is so much misleading emotional shit that seems to accompany these issues which makes sorting the wood from the trees difficult!

There have been some enlightening comments posted amongst the crap on this thread!

Some quite thought provoking even, well I have questioned my own bigotry (perhaps) attitudes anyway! :rolleyes: Interesting to say the least.

[Berries]

Some quite thought provoking even, well I have questioned my own bigotry (perhaps) attitudes anyway! :rolleyes: Interesting to say the least.
Fancy it do you?

:msn-wink:

[Madness]

Fancy it do you?

:msn-wink:

http://blogs.abc.net.au/.a/6a00e0097e4e6888330134892281b8970c-500wi

[Berries]

Neither of them can do their laces up. Fuck all use with a strap on.



EDIT - And next to a playground as well. Is it a school in Kerikeri?

[Virago]

...Yes it evolves but at the core it is still a religious ceremony with a legal definition...

I think you'll find that it's been many years since the religious aspect was compulsory in a marriage ceremony. At the core, a marriage ceremony is simply a formal declaration of commitment, recognised by the state, and acknowledged by family, friends and public.

Many do choose to have a religious aspect to their marriage - as is their choice. But while I am 100% supportive of the concept of same-sex marriage, those participants may need to accept that they cannot force any church or indeed any celebrant to marry them.

[BoristheBiter]

That's an interesting question. But why would a hetero couple go for a civil union instead anyway?

Because unlike same sex couples, they have a choice.


I think you'll find that it's been many years since the religious aspect was compulsory in a marriage ceremony. At the core, a marriage ceremony is simply a formal declaration of commitment, recognised by the state, and acknowledged by family, friends and public.

Many do choose to have a religious aspect to their marriage - as is their choice. But while I am 100% supportive of the concept of same-sex marriage, those participants may need to accept that they cannot force any church or indeed any celebrant to marry them.

???
Never said it was compulsory, but I would say that probably most wedding's still have some aspect of religion to them.

[Winston001]

Those in the homophobe camp have made this thread about homosexuality when in reality this debate is all about equality.

Well not really. For one thing, just because a person questions the concept of gay marriage, that does not make them a homophobe. Its like the Treaty debates - anyone opposed to Treaty claims is labelled a racist, the result being no alternative points of view can be expressed.

As for equality - why can't a brother and sister marry? Two brothers? An uncle and his niece? If all being equal is the test, why not allow these bonds too?

[mashman]

Must be time for a musical interlude and one of the tunes I'd likely drop in my top 10


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVXmMMSo47s

[oldrider]

Well not really. For one thing, just because a person questions the concept of gay marriage, that does not make them a homophobe. Its like the Treaty debates - anyone opposed to Treaty claims is labelled a racist, the result being no alternative points of view can be expressed.

As for equality - why can't a brother and sister marry? Two brothers? An uncle and his niece? If all being equal is the test, why not allow these bonds too?

True!

Saw a program on Sky TV last night while surfing the channels trying to find something to watch, it was called "Taboo" or something like that!

There was this guy living with a blow-up doll and I thought, next they will be claiming the right to get married as they are being discriminated against too! :facepalm:

Where will it ever end? :shifty:

[HenryDorsetCase]

As for equality - why can't a brother and sister marry? Two brothers? An uncle and his niece? If all being equal is the test, why not allow these bonds too?

Oh yeah, we went there, girlfriend. around page 20something. I accept your premise IF there is no possibility of children (i.e. my eugenics programme is affected by interbreeding).

[BoristheBiter]

Oh yeah, we went there, girlfriend. around page 20something. I accept your premise IF there is no possibility of children (i.e. my eugenics programme is affected by interbreeding).

Why? They should be allowed the same rights as everyone else.
After all is happens in nature.

[HenryDorsetCase]

HenryDorsetCase? ... Is that a correct statement in your understanding/interpretation/experience between Civil Union and marriage?

And is this also the case for heterosexual couples that opt for Civil Union? Genuine question here!

I think that is correct.

Not sure about the heterosexual civil union. Intriguing. I'll get back to you.

The only civil unions I have been involved with have been with same sex couples. And only two of those. Early days yet though

[HenryDorsetCase]

Why? They should be allowed the same rights as everyone else.
After all is happens in nature.

That is arguable, sure. But a counter argument might be that the risk to society of breeding mongs outweighs those parties rights to breed.

Hell, we both know that if they are going to do it, they are going to do it anyway, right?

Is it time for me to post "The Deeper In" again?

[HenryDorsetCase]

True!

Saw a program on Sky TV last night while surfing the channels trying to find something to watch, it was called "Taboo" or something like that!

There was this guy living with a blow-up doll and I thought, next they will be claiming the right to get married as they are being discriminated against too! :facepalm:

Where will it ever end? :shifty:

You sure you werent watching LARS AND THE REAL GIRL? If not, you need to rent or buy this DVD. Its an excellent movie.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0805564/

[avgas]

Well, I can't but I remember that there have been examples of couples presented as Heterosexual's that had opted for Civil Unions rather than getting married.
I guess that pretty much what me and my wife have. We walked into the office, did some vowels off a paper. Got a mate to co-sign.
We didn't have rings or anything. Whole thing was over in about 30 minutes.

But I think the term "Married" sounds nicer don't you. Civil Union sounds like something you find at a mine site. Seems the only people jumping up and down about the gays using the term married are the religious lot.

Why aren't you lot jumping up and down about a hetero couple getting married the way we did? No church, no rings, no religion at all.

[oneofsix]

Never said it was compulsory, but I would say that probably most wedding's still have some aspect of religion to them.

Don't know about religion but certainly believe and/or faith. She totally believing she can change him and him having faith she wont change and them both believing that it will last. Or is that only first time marriages?

If you have same sex marriages then you will either have two deluded chicks believing they can change the other or two guys convinced their husband will neither change.

[BoristheBiter]

If you have same sex marriages then you will either have two deluded chicks believing they can change the other or two guys convinced their husband will neither change.

Funny that the few same sex couples i know, there is always a husband and a wife.
So if you factor that in then they should be able to get married now, after all they only have to change the form.

[Madness]

Well not really. For one thing, just because a person questions the concept of gay marriage, that does not make them a homophobe. Its like the Treaty debates - anyone opposed to Treaty claims is labelled a racist, the result being no alternative points of view can be expressed.

As for equality - why can't a brother and sister marry? Two brothers? An uncle and his niece? If all being equal is the test, why not allow these bonds too?

I think you need to read the preceding 35-odd pages. The incest thing has been covered a couple of times at least. When I mentioned homophobes I wasn't referring to those questioning gay marriage, instead a small number of narrow-minded bigots who have clearly identified themselves.

[Winston001]

I think that is correct.

Not sure about the heterosexual civil union. Intriguing. I'll get back to you.



Its been a while since I did an adoption but as best I can recall, adoption of a child can only be granted to a couple who are married.

A single person can also adopt but not a de facto couple or a civil union couple. This means one of such a couple can adopt - but not both of them. This is one of the central reasons gay people want the right to marry.

The alternative is to amend the civil union law which would address everyone's concerns but oddly, that isn't being argued.


Edit: just for clarity, many adoptions are by fathers in de facto relationships (and marriages) of the mothers child where the father is not the natural parent.

[HenryDorsetCase]

Its been a while since I did an adoption but as best I can recall, adoption of a child can only be granted to a couple who are married.

A single person can also adopt but not a de facto couple or a civil union couple. This means one of such a couple can adopt - but not both of them. This is one of the central reasons gay people want the right to marry.

The alternative is to amend the civil union law which would address everyone's concerns but oddly, that isn't being argued.


Edit: just for clarity, many adoptions are by fathers in de facto relationships (and marriages) of the mothers child where the father is not the natural parent.

Cheers. For all the time I spend on relationship property (which isnt that much really) I've never done an adoption.

[Winston001]

Oh yeah, we went there, girlfriend. around page 20something. I accept your premise IF there is no possibility of children (i.e. my eugenics programme is affected by interbreeding).

I am but a humble journeyman arguer and crave your indulgence for not reading the full case. ;)

[Tigadee]

If you have same sex marriages then you will either have two deluded chicks believing they can change the other or two guys convinced their husband will neither change.

Either way, boy are they gonna be surprised! :laugh:

[Drew]

Either way, boy are they gonna be surprised! :laugh:

Lasting marriages.

Where men accept they are changing to their missus will, and women accepting that the man has changed to what her will was last week, it's too soon to change him back.

[oneofsix]

Either way, boy are they gonna be surprised! :laugh:

It will give new meaning to the phrase 'the gay divorcee' :wings:

[Swoop]

Irony #2 : Catholic priests telling everyone what's "normal" for humans to do.

Q: Why is the Catholic Church against birth control?

A: Because they'll run out of children to molest.

[Tigadee]

Where men accept they are changing to their missus will, and women accepting that the man has changed to what her will was last week, it's too soon to change him back.

In hetero marriages, the only will that gets changed is the last Will and Testament...<_<

[HenryDorsetCase]

In hetero marriages, the only will that gets changed is the last Will and Testament...<_<

as we say in our business: "Where there's a Will there's a relative"

[Tigadee]

As Hugh says, "Where there's a Will, there's a lay"...
http://www.lasplash.com/uploads//1/hugh-hefner.jpg

[blairnz]

In addition to the simplicity of 'equal rights', another reason for gays to be allowed marriage is that Civil Unions aren't recognised in most countries abroad, where marriages are.

[oldrider]

In addition to the simplicity of 'equal rights', another reason for gays to be allowed marriage is that Civil Unions aren't recognised in most countries abroad, where marriages are.

Fair enough but didn't Helen Clark want to re-establish New Zealand as a world leader in the important things in (her) life! :shifty:

[BoristheBiter]

In addition to the simplicity of 'equal rights', another reason for gays to be allowed marriage is that Civil Unions aren't recognised in most countries abroad, where marriages are.

In most country's same sex marriage isn't legal so it wouldn't be recognised anyway.

[superman]

Passes first reading 78-40

http://i.qkme.me/3prtgb.jpg

[husaberg]

<center><img src="http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/22964423.jpg" width="340px"/><center>

[BoristheBiter]

Passes first reading 78-40

[

Really will it make such an earth shattering difference? I think not.

More of the same lets pay some attention to something that takes the spotlight of something more important.

If i was voting i would have abstained as it matters not either way but god I'm am so sick of hearing about.

[superman]

Really will it make such an earth shattering difference? I think not.

More of the same lets pay some attention to something that takes the spotlight of something more important.

If i was voting i would have abstained as it matters not either way but god I'm am so sick of hearing about.

Very true... let's get back to figuring out a way to destroy capitalism for the benefit of civilisation. :yes:

[husaberg]

Really will it make such an earth shattering difference? I think not.

More of the same lets pay some attention to something that takes the spotlight of something more important.

If i was voting i would have abstained as it matters not either way but god I'm am so sick of hearing about.



Certainly took the spotlight of the assets sales and the Solid Energy situation.

After all the Chinese just want the coal and are happy to supply there own miners.

Wow it will be awesome for a chance do buy a slice of Meridian Energy

............Funny thing is as a SOE i Already own a all of it:facepalm:

Wonder if we will sell the Hospitals before we get rid of ACC.

[Tigadee]

It always happens... :facepalm:

Whether Labour or National, it seems to be a Government tactic to serve up something juicy and contentious like the anti-smacking bill or gay marriage, or an MP putting his/her foot in his/her mouth, or an MP assaulting another to take the public's mind off deeper and more damaging issues like increasing election funding, government FUBARs [e.g. Kim Dotcom], asset sales, trade agreements and the like.

[mashman]

OMG it's the tin foil hat brigade WTF is going on... don't forget the drugs testing of bludgers, kiwirail staff, SCF debacle, millions wasted defending branding rights for tobacco, billions wasted building more roads for more fuckin cars, road user charge hikes (our vehicles are too fuel efficient so they need to get their $ from us somehow), lending money to the IMF, Poverty not being addressed and not even a blip on anyone's radar, Chch still not being rebuilt and last, on this list, but by no means least the Kiwi's that are dying overseas to protecting such a sterling way of life. Wonder what will be next.

[Berries]

Passes first reading 78-40
Bugger.




10ch

[oldrider]

It always happens... :facepalm:

Whether Labour or National, it seems to be a Government tactic to serve up something juicy and contentious like the anti-smacking bill or gay marriage, or an MP putting his/her foot in his/her mouth, or an MP assaulting another to take the public's mind off deeper and more damaging issues like increasing election funding, government FUBARs [e.g. Kim Dotcom], asset sales, trade agreements and the like.

True!

It's all a political circus planned to be a distraction from the real shit they are dishing up ... it's planned and we swallow it every time!

The Kiwi electorate is numb from the waist up now anyway and any political party with a chance of making the cut is socialist by nature!

Regardless of what they pretend to be or say they are, the results are almost always identical, that is the major constant, damn it! :facepalm:

[Berries]

.. it's planned and we swallow it every time!
Wrong thread dude, wrong thread.

[oldrider]

Wrong thread dude, wrong thread.

You think so ... wait and see just part of the same old shit as far as I am concerned! :mad:

[Virago]

No point flogging the dead horse. Quick - find another bandwagon to save face...

[Virago]

...just part of the same old shit as far as I am concerned! :mad:

We covered the anal sex stuff several pages back.

[Madness]

Interesting to see that incest prosecutions actually exist. Dunedin, huh?

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/7569398/Incest-parents-told-This-must-stop

[oldrider]

No point flogging the dead horse. Quick - find another bandwagon to save face...

OK OK so it was off topic but I am just so fucking sick of this bloody subject, it's all you ever hear about! FFS! :sick:

[Tigadee]

OMG it's the tin foil hat brigade WTF is going on... don't forget the drugs testing of bludgers, kiwirail staff, SCF debacle, millions wasted defending branding rights for tobacco, billions wasted building more roads for more fuckin cars, road user charge hikes (our vehicles are too fuel efficient so they need to get their $ from us somehow), lending money to the IMF, Poverty not being addressed and not even a blip on anyone's radar, Chch still not being rebuilt and last, on this list, but by no means least the Kiwi's that are dying overseas to protecting such a sterling way of life. Wonder what will be next.

Uhhhh, thanks? I missed a few... :lol:

[Berries]

Interesting to see that incest prosecutions actually exist. Dunedin, huh?
It gets dark early down here in winter and the tv is shit.

I guess that if they had been same sex there would have been no children involved and they would have got away with it. Funny old world.

[Edbear]

It always happens... :facepalm:

Whether Labour or National, it seems to be a Government tactic to serve up something juicy and contentious like the anti-smacking bill or gay marriage, or an MP putting his/her foot in his/her mouth, or an MP assaulting another to take the public's mind off deeper and more damaging issues like increasing election funding, government FUBARs [e.g. Kim Dotcom], asset sales, trade agreements and the like.

And only a select few KB members notice that tactic, eh? :yes:

[BoristheBiter]

Very true... let's get back to figuring out a way to destroy capitalism for the benefit of civilisation. :yes:

Fuck that, I want to know why the three Harley riders on Sunday didn't wave back.

[Tigadee]

And only a select few KB members notice that tactic, eh?

May be some correlation to the bike they ride? :shifty:Hmmmm... Must investigate...

[Paul in NZ]

Fuck that, I want to know why the three Harley riders on Sunday didn't wave back.

They were preoccupied because they were going to a ghey wedding?

[oldrider]

One thing intrigues me about this whole gay marriage argument!

Homosexuals can not reproduce themselves by remaining to themselves true.

Yet homosexuals are gaining in numbers!

Numbers strong enough to lobby (international) governments and consequently change laws and threaten the norms of previously "dominant" heterosexual societies!

Are heterosexuals simply breeding themselves out of existence? :facepalm:

Or do homosexuals simply have double standards! :confused:

[Paul in NZ]

One thing intrigues me about this whole gay marriage argument!

Homosexuals can not reproduce themselves by remaining to themselves true.

Yet homosexuals are gaining in numbers!

Numbers strong enough to lobby (international) governments and consequently change laws and threaten the norms of previously "dominant" heterosexual societies!

Are heterosexuals simply breeding themselves out of existence? :facepalm:

Or do homosexuals simply have double standards! :confused:

You are assuming homosexuality is hereditary - Its not...

I guess since its now a lot more 'acceptable' to be gay more people have come out.... Funny old world isnt it. Its now easy to be gay and harder to be a motorcyclist...

[SMOKEU]

One thing intrigues me about this whole gay marriage argument!

Homosexuals can not reproduce themselves by remaining to themselves true.

Yet homosexuals are gaining in numbers!

Numbers strong enough to lobby (international) governments and consequently change laws and threaten the norms of previously "dominant" heterosexual societies!

Are heterosexuals simply breeding themselves out of existence? :facepalm:

Or do homosexuals simply have double standards! :confused:

More people are becoming gay due to a relaxation in applicable legislation and an increase in social acceptance. It's a lifestyle choice.

[Edbear]

More people are becoming gay due to a relaxation in applicable legislation and an increase in social acceptance. It's a lifestyle choice.

It's the latest trend. Give it time it will be replaced by something else new and fashionable...

[Tigadee]

It's the latest trend. Give it time it will be replaced by something else new and fashionable...

:blip: I hear driving MX5s Commando-style is the next big thing... :lol:

[oneofsix]

It's the latest trend. Give it time it will be replaced by something else new and fashionable...

Goats? Stewart Murray Wilson as a trend setter anyone? :sick:

[oldrider]

You are assuming homosexuality is hereditary - Its not...

I guess since its now a lot more 'acceptable' to be gay more people have come out.... Funny old world isnt it. Its now easy to be gay and harder to be a motorcyclist...


More people are becoming gay due to a relaxation in applicable legislation and an increase in social acceptance. It's a lifestyle choice.

So what you think is that homosexuals make a choice and now want to be able to make another choice?

So "To thine own self be true" on the first choice doesn't count any more and they want to be the same as heterosexuals on the second choice!

Homosexuals have always pleaded that they were born that way and have no choice in the matter!

Despite all the "to thine own self be true" rhetoric and pleading for acceptance and understanding, live and let live etc etc!

They now have that and are trying to call the shots on everything ... smacks at double standards and a desire to be in total control to me!

Roll over and surrender heterosexuals the world is under new ("pink") management, you will respect our authority! (South Park tones here) :bash: :kick:

[avgas]

It's the latest trend. Give it time it will be replaced by something else new and fashionable...
Just like a religious belief...........or a diet...........

[SMOKEU]

It's the latest trend. Give it time it will be replaced by something else new and fashionable...

Exactly.


So what you think is that homosexuals make a choice and now want to be able to make another choice?

So "To thine own self be true" on the first choice doesn't count any more and they want to be the same as heterosexuals on the second choice!

Homosexuals have always pleaded that they were born that way and have no choice in the matter!

Despite all the "to thine own self be true" rhetoric and pleading for acceptance and understanding, live and let live etc etc!

They now have that and are trying to call the shots on everything ... smacks at double standards and a desire to be in total control to me!

Roll over and surrender heterosexuals the world is under new ("pink") management, you will respect our authority! (South Park tones here) :bash: :kick:

It's still their choice to be gay. As far as I'm aware, no one is forcing same sex couples together. If they don't want to be gay, then they don't have to be.

[Madness]

It's the latest trend. Give it time it will be replaced by something else new and fashionable...

Like religion?

[mashman]

More people are becoming gay due to a relaxation in applicable legislation and an increase in social acceptance. It's a lifestyle choice.

Started by Oscar Wilde no doubt... he was cool and all of the kids wanted to be cool just like him, so they had to become gay. Perhaps it was my grandad that started the trend... fuck, maybe I'm related to Oscar Wilde. :killingme @lifestyle choice.

[Virago]

Making sweeping generalisations based on erronous assumptions is also a lifestyle choice. Shouldn't be allowed, y'know...

Before we know it, stupid people will be breeding the rest of us out of existence.

[avgas]

Making sweeping generalisations based on erronous assumptions is also a lifestyle choice. Shouldn't be allowed, y'know...
Before we know it, stupid people will be breeding the rest of us out of existence.
Didn't you get the memo
They're already here
http://0.media.collegehumor.cvcdn.com/0/0/collegehumor.d60b2db0a597e5ba2a27f38072a244f1.jpg

[HenryDorsetCase]

More people are becoming gay due to a relaxation in applicable legislation and an increase in social acceptance. It's a lifestyle choice.

liar liar liar

[HenryDorsetCase]

Exactly.



It's still their choice to be gay. As far as I'm aware, no one is forcing same sex couples together. If they don't want to be gay, then they don't have to be.

You don't know any gay people do you?

[HenryDorsetCase]

name and shame:

List of MPs who voted against the first reading of the marriage equality bill:

Shane Ardern (N)
Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi (N)
David Bennett (N)
Chester Borrows (N)
Simon Bridges (N)
Bill English (N)
Christopher Finlayson (N)
Nathan Guy (N)
John Hayes (N)
Phil Heatley (N))
Brendan Horan (NZF)
Colin King (N)
Melissa Lee (N)
Asenati Lole-Taylor (NZF)
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga (N)
Tim Macindoe (N)
Tracey Martin (NZF)
Todd McClay (N)
Mark Mitchell (N)
Alfred Ngaro (N)
Damien O'Connor (L)
Simon O'Connor (N)
Denis O'Rourke (NZF)
Winston Peters (NZF)
Richard Prosser (NZF)
Ross Robertson (L)
Eric Roy (N)
Tony Ryall (N)
Mike Sabin (N)
Katrina Shanks (N)
Su'a William Sio (L)
Nick Smith (N)
Barbara Stewart (NZF)
Lindsay Tisch (N)
Anne Tolley (N)
Louise Upston (N)
Andrew Williams (NZF)
Michael Woodhouse (N)
Jian Yang (N)
Jonathan Young (N)

[blairnz]

Exactly.

It's still their choice to be gay. As far as I'm aware, no one is forcing same sex couples together. If they don't want to be gay, then they don't have to be.

I'm curious to know your definition of being gay. Is it not 'a person whom is attracted to the members of the same sex'? Do you control whom you're attracted to? It sounds like you're asexual/non sexual and making a wrong assumption everyone else is.

[Edbear]

:blip: I hear driving MX5s Commando-style is the next big thing... :lol:

As long as it's Mrs. Bear....


Like religion?

If only you knew...

[oneofsix]

I'm curious to know your definition of being gay.

Happy, joyful - can't have these sorts of people marrying, marriage is a serious business
:jerry:


Do you control whom you're attracted to?

Yes but not always whilst aware of the consequences or because of circumstance I may not fully comprehend. I like ample tits, is this because I was breast feed? Still a choice. I like shapely legs, I don't like pre-pubiscant pussies, there is meant to be some cuddly fur to nussle and I hate the prickly regrowth. But these are all choices.

[superman]

A hilarious take on why anti-homosexuals should allow homosexuals to marry.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vx_MpRP39as&feature=player_embedded

[avgas]

marriage is a serious business
Must be because I would be fucking rich if I wasn't married.

Prob why all the fags have all the money eh?

[avgas]

A hilarious take on why anti-homosexuals should allow homosexuals to marry.
EXACTLY!!!!!
They want it all - they can have it all.

[Paul in NZ]

While I'm sure there are some gay folks that are indeed gay by choice I don't think that's at all representative of the majority. If you think back to the persecution of last century no one would have wanted to be gay as it wasn't much fun really.

No - I think its just something that goes 'click' in the head and 'poof' you are gay. Its a bit like depression (well its nothing like depression but I was struggling for an example) where in some cases who knows why it happens to one person and not another.

In my own head - I have zero issues with gay folks or gayness in general as i think everyone deserves a chance to be happy. In fact some of the best parties I've even been to were put on by gay organizations... (don't ask, long story)

But please don't tell me defining your whole life by your sexuality is anything to be proud of and no - I'm not yet comfortable with where gay 'marriage' could take this. I'd be happier with an equivalent term but less so with redefining something existing just to suit a few. End of the day I know who I am and I'm not threatened or worried by it... It just all seems a bit silly really..

[superman]

But please don't tell me defining your whole life by your sexuality is anything to be proud of and no - I'm not yet comfortable with where gay 'marriage' could take this. I'd be happier with an equivalent term but less so with redefining something existing just to suit a few. End of the day I know who I am and I'm not threatened or worried by it... It just all seems a bit silly really..

Some women live their whole life by being women, blacks by being black etc. It's what happens to any group that is marginalised.

[oneofsix]

If this Gay Marriage thing is all about equality and being allowed to adopt etc then how come the adoption has to be debated separately and adoption is actually in a totally different bill http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/politics/7579726/Same-sex-adoption-law-to-be-debated.

I call :bs: on most of the pro-gay marriage crap in this thread. The marriage bill is only about the use of the word.


:jerry:

[BoristheBiter]

name and shame:

List of MPs who voted against the first reading of the marriage equality bill:



WTF? It is their right to choose to support it or not or do equal rights not work in this?

I don't agree that 120 MP's have the right to decide this for a country it should go to a referendum.

[oldrider]

Even if they were given all the bells and whistles that "marriage" has under "Civil Union" they would not be happy until they get that "marriage" title!

Then it would be some other issue, then another, then another ad infinitum and whether you support them or not is immaterial ... it is simply the nature of the beast! :rolleyes:

Personally I don't have a fixed opinion I just think there are too many other more important issues for parliament to focus on right now, rather than this! :brick:

[Madness]

If only you knew...

If only I gave a flying fuck what you think...

[Edbear]

If only I gave a flying fuck what you think...

Strange you keep noting and quoting me so often... Makes people think we must be friends. :innocent:

[Madness]

Makes people think we must be friends. :innocent:

How do you know what other people think? Have you researched it? Besides, I would just give you a red but you cry about them so much it's embarrasing.

I heard on the radio on the way home that if the gay marriage bill passes it will automatically make gay adoption legal under the current law.

[husaberg]

How do you know what other people think? Have you researched it? Besides, I would just give you a red but you cry about them so much it's embarrasing.

I heard on the radio on the way home that if the gay marriage bill passes it will automatically make gay adoption legal under the current law.

How do you go about adopting a Gay married couple?
i guess they would be ubber tidy.:shifty::innocent:

[Madness]

How do you go about adopting a Gay married couple?

I think it would be more about them wanting you, or not.

Good luck with that.

[Drew]

I don't agree that 120 MP's have the right to decide this for a country it should go to a referendum.It's the very point of governing system we have. They get to decide if a referendum happens, and they get to tehn vote on it if they reckon a referendum is not the fairest way to make the decision.

Don't like it? Move abroad.

You're welcome

[BoristheBiter]

It's the very point of governing system we have. They get to decide if a referendum happens, and they get to tehn vote on it if they reckon a referendum is not the fairest way to make the decision.

Don't like it? Move abroad.

You're welcome

:yawn::yawn:
Come up with some new stuff Drew your trolling is getting weak.

[ducatilover]

It's the very point of governing system we have. They get to decide if a referendum happens, and they get to tehn vote on it if they reckon a referendum is not the fairest way to make the decision.

Don't like it? Move abroad.

You're welcome

You telling me I 'ave no say?

[avgas]

If this Gay Marriage thing is all about equality and being allowed to adopt etc then how come the adoption has to be debated separately and adoption is actually in a totally different bill http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/politics/7579726/Same-sex-adoption-law-to-be-debated.

I call :bs: on most of the pro-gay marriage crap in this thread. The marriage bill is only about the use of the word.

WOW! Nothing passes you.
eerrrrrrr what if the marriage bill fails.....unlike motorcyclist, the gays might have a back-up (no pun intended) plan.

Pity we didn't get any homo's to help us from paying more ACC

[BoristheBiter]

If this Gay Marriage thing is all about equality and being allowed to adopt etc then how come the adoption has to be debated separately and adoption is actually in a totally different bill http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/politics/7579726/Same-sex-adoption-law-to-be-debated.

I call :bs: on most of the pro-gay marriage crap in this thread. The marriage bill is only about the use of the word.


:jerry:

Because this bill is about everyone not just gays.
At the moment a de-facto couple can adopt but not ones that have had a CU, or, a gay single person can adopt but not a gay couple.

Yes the marriage act will change that for those that are going to get married but this about everyone else.

[husaberg]

WOW! Nothing passes you.
eerrrrrrr what if the marriage bill fails.....unlike motorcyclist, the gays might have a back-up (no pun intended) plan.

Pity we didn't get any homo's to help us from paying more ACC


http://static.stuff.co.nz/1344777165/200/7465200.jpg

Justice minister now pro gay equality, marriage
In a remarkable change in her attitude to equality for glbt people, senior government figure and Minister of Justice Judith Collins has voiced her support for marriage equality, legal adoption by same sex couples and legal recognition of a person’s gender identity which may have changed since their birth.

Speaking briefly to GayNZ.com Daily News yesterday afternoon…Collins said of marriage equality: “I’ve got no problem with it.”

On enabling same-sex couples to legally adopt children she responded: “I’ve got no particular problem with that either.”

And regarding appropriate recognition of minority gender identities: “It doesn’t hurt for us to acknowledge people’s diversity… it actually helps us.”

Asked if she felt glbt people in New Zealand are generally getting, in the words of the Human Rights Commission conference theme, “a fair go for all,” Collins said: “There are some issues that need to be dealt with. Frankly it would be really nice if we could look at people as human beings rather than be always saying ‘you can’t do that because you’re gay’ or whatever.”http://yournz.org/2012/08/21/judith-collins-supporting-marriage-equality/

Funny enough she is also the ACC minister.
So i guess she is now in favour of both from what i understand she voted against civil union, because it didn't go far enough?
ps she may look a bit butch but is "Married"

[oldrider]

WOW! Nothing passes you.
eerrrrrrr what if the marriage bill fails.....unlike motorcyclist, the gays might have a back-up (no pun intended) plan.

Pity we didn't get any homo's to help us from paying more ACC

Well the excessive ACC levy (tax) has sure makes me feel like I have been screwed by a bum!(AKA Nick Smith) :eek5:

Got to admit it, the gays sure have learned how to punch above their weight, politically at least! :yes: (Not convinced yet whether that's a good thing or a bad thing, time will tell!)

[Drew]

:yawn::yawn:
Come up with some new stuff Drew your trolling is getting weak.Who's trolling?


You telling me I 'ave no say?A down side to the system, everyone ^^^ get to have a say come voting time.:facepalm:

[The Lone Rider]

I had some gay and gay support "friends" ranting on Facebook.

They love to do that it seems.


So I told them to list the differences between a civil union and a marriage.

No one was really able - mainly just got more rants.



Out of the one or two "differences" that were said... I quashed all of them

Such as them complaining gays cannot adopt.



I said to them.. are you sure? They were adamant they knew better.


So I rang CYFS and Adoption NZ (as my "friends" were were unwilling to do more than rant).

Boy were my gay "friends" wrong.

In fact, gays qualify to adopt as well as I can. And as a straight single male, they have one up on me as the law states I am not able to adopt a female.

[oldrider]

Minority groups demands are nearly always dismissed as just a case of the tail wagging the dog!

Why does the dog allow the tail to do this? :confused:

Because the dog is just too fucking lazy and disinterested to do it himself! :shifty:

[Virago]

Waving the "minority group" flag to support the depriving of others of equal rights doesn't cut it.

Perhaps we could legislate against anyone over the age of 65 from being married? After all, they're just a minority group. They certainly can't procreate, and the thought of them having sex is distasteful. They don't need to be married. I mean, it all comes down to common decency, doesn't it?

[oldrider]

Waving the "minority group" flag to support the depriving of others of equal rights doesn't cut it.

Err, your emotions got ahead of you again .... the criticism was of the so called "moral/silent majority" (the lazy dog), not the minorities! :facepalm:

[Virago]

Err, your emotions got ahead of you again .... the criticism was of the so called "moral/silent majority" (the lazy dog), not the minorities! :facepalm:

Possibly, but what is your point? That the lazy dog, or "moral/silent majority" shouldn't cave into the tail's demands?

[oldrider]

Possibly, but what is your point? That the lazy dog, or "moral/silent majority" shouldn't cave into the tail's demands?

That the majority should be more proactive and lead rather than always being led when it comes to understanding the plight of minority groups! (Sigh)

[Nova.]

probs been posted, (cant be fucked going through 40 odd pages to check but..)

http://a5.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/6070_10151137669288537_1776496953_n.jpg?dl=1

[Virago]

That the majority should be more proactive and lead rather than always being led when it comes to understanding the plight of minority groups! (Sigh)

So with regard to the issue of gay marriage, who exactly are the majority, and what way should they lead?

[short-circuit]

So with regard to the issue of gay marriage, who exactly are the majority, and what way should they lead?

He's got nothing :corn:

....some of my best friends are bigots....

[FJRider]

Gay marriage will be voluntary ... when they make it compulsory ... I may be worried ...
:shutup:

[short-circuit]

He's got nothing :corn:

....some of my best friends are bigots....

....Nah. Didn't think so. He lurked in the thread for fifteen minutes trying to come up with some jusification for his ludicrous post before logging off for a cup of tea, a nana nap and then a damn good think about how to reconcile coming across as an uptight conservative bigot while claiming to be a "libertarian"....

Looks like John Banks did a flip flop on that score too

http://asianinvasion2006.blogspot.co.nz/2012/07/john-banks-will-vote-for-gay-marriage.html

http://home.nzcity.co.nz/news/article.aspx?id=153170&fm=newsmain%2Cnrhl

[oldrider]

So with regard to the issue of gay marriage, who exactly are the majority, and what way should they lead?

There is no such thing as gay marriage!

There are those that desire that same sex couples should be included in in the existing marriage process, so in the terms of your question, they would be a minority!

My understanding of the issue (as you put it) is that provisions for same sex couple official and legal recognition was catered for with the introduction of "Civil Unions".

The Civil Union ceremony also applies to heterosexual couples so it would appear that Civil Union should eventually establish it's self as the majority preference and displace marriage over time because Civil Union is all inclusive.

The only advantage in the claim for same sex couples to be included in the existing "marriage" process is to be able to use the name "marriage"!

If all the old arguments prior to Civil Union are correct Civil Union should be the way forward while marriage is scheduled to join the dinosaurs as the old guard dies off.

Why would so called modern enlightened self styled forward thinking people want to fight for the right to join with the dinosaurs?

Or is the real agenda just a continuation of we want, we want, we want to be included where currently we are not ... just for the hell of it!

Adoption is not part of the same law and comes under an entirely different act so is not part of the same issue!

[Virago]

...There are those that desire that same sex couples should be included in in the existing marriage process, so in the terms of your question, they would be a minority!...

Please explain. Every current poll on the issue suggests that roughly two thirds of New Zealanders are very much in favour of same-sex marriage. The "moral majority" of which you speak is getting thinner on the ground, and they do not have a mandate to speak on behalf of heterosexuals.


...Or is the real agenda just a continuation of we want, we want, we want to be included where currently we are not ... just for the hell of it!...

The tired old argument that "They don't need the same rights as me, they are catered for in other ways." is also flawed. Equality and civil rights are not sought "for the hell of it", except in the self-serving perception of those who already have them.

[FJRider]

There is no such thing as gay marriage!



I think the intent of proposed change wanted ... is there being no distinction between Gay or Hetrosexual marriages. Just simply a legal marriage between a couple. Be it for love, or for legal convenience.

As it is for the Hetrosexual community now.

[oldrider]

What will be will be, for me it is mind over matter ... I don't mind because for me it really doesn't matter! :mellow:

Opinions are like arseholes, everybody has one of their own! The sun has come out :sunny: now that "is" important!

[Madness]

There is no such thing as gay marriage!
Yet. Hence the Bill being debated currently in parliament.


There are those that desire that same sex couples should be included in in the existing marriage process, so in the terms of your question, they would be a minority!
As Virago has stated, current public opinion polls show you're wrong.


My understanding of the issue (as you put it) is that provisions for same sex couple official and legal recognition was catered for with the introduction of "Civil Unions".
It provides official and legal recognition but at the same time puts those in Civil Union into a special group within society, which some believe isn't right.


The Civil Union ceremony also applies to heterosexual couples so it would appear that Civil Union should eventually establish it's self as the majority preference and displace marriage over time because Civil Union is all inclusive.
I struggle to imagine why any heterosexual couple would want to enter into an institution created as a stop-gap measure in providing equal rights to homosexuals. People like Helen Clark and her hubby might be the exception?


The only advantage in the claim for same sex couples to be included in the existing "marriage" process is to be able to use the name "marriage"!
The crux of the argument right there. You either think they deserve the right to do so or not. Who do you think the issue is more important to on a purely personal level?


If all the old arguments prior to Civil Union are correct Civil Union should be the way forward while marriage is scheduled to join the dinosaurs as the old guard dies off.

Why would so called modern enlightened self styled forward thinking people want to fight for the right to join with the dinosaurs?

Maybe there are gay couples who cherish the idea of marriage for what it means to them. Who is to say that allowing couples like this to marry won't somehow strengthen the institution within our society. Maybe the sky won't fall?


Or is the real agenda just a continuation of we want, we want, we want to be included where currently we are not ... just for the hell of it!
Like the blacks in America and South Africa you mean?


Adoption is not part of the same law and comes under an entirely different act so is not part of the same issue!
As I understand it there are two seperate Bills. The gay adoption Bill, also a Private Members Bill, will be rendered unwarranted if the gay marriage Bill passes.

[husaberg]

It provides official and legal recognition but at the same time puts those in Civil Union into a special group within society, which some believe isn't right.




Aren't they already in a special group of society group anyway?

Not meaning to be controversial or say its wrong or anything. because it how they choose to life ie either their choice and or who they are.I'm ok with that.
but but it is by no means the norm of society anyway. lets be clear here.

[Madness]

Aren't they already in a special group of society group anyway?

Not meaning to be controversial or say its wrong or anything. because it how they choose to life ie either their choice and or who they are.I'm ok with that.
but but it is by no means the norm of society anyway. lets be clear here.

Yes, they are in a special group by default because of their sexuality. The debate is about accepting this group as normal within a modern New Zealand society rather than precluding certain fundamental rights. It's an evolutionary process. No wonder Ed hates it.

[husaberg]

Yes, they are in a special group by default because of their sexuality. The debate is about accepting this group as normal within a modern New Zealand society rather than precluding certain fundamental rights. It's an evolutionary process. No wonder Ed hates it.

Re Ed. Ya meanie i have often found him to say what a lot of people may think but do not speak out.
But back to the subject I must say i was not bothered, no opinion either way really, by the thought of Marriage rights.....
Until it was pointed out what is happening is actually a fundamental change to what the word means.
A word that has meant something for over 20000 years (a Man and a Women)suddenly has to be made to mean something else....

Well sorry even if it puts me in the minority i think that is not right.

[FJRider]

A word that has meant something for over 20000 years (a Man and a Women)suddenly has to be made to mean something else....

Well sorry even if it puts me in the minority i think that is not right.

To be disallowed on the grounds of race, religion, or sex ... Should be against basic human rights ... surely ... ???

Just because the "rules" always said that's the way it is ... shouldn't mean that's the way it always HAS to be ...

[oldrider]

Fair enough, no real problems with any of the points above except that the final decision on all this will be made by a very (my words) dubious "minority"! :facepalm:

A lot of people just want it dead and buried so that we can move on! .... Next? :corn:

[avgas]

Married Bum Sex.


Sorry what was the question?

[husaberg]

To be disallowed on the grounds of race, religion, or sex ... Should be against basic human rights ... surely ... ???

Just because the "rules" always said that's the way it is ... shouldn't mean that's the way it always HAS to be ...

red heering alert
Sorry i don't see how it is a basic human right to have everything that hetosexuals have esp when you consider there is already principals in place so as to safeguard the property right's, employments rights religious beliefs etc.

Why does a word meaning (marriage)that was never ever intended to mean anything other than the uniting of a Male and female and had been the case for thousands of years no have to be made to change now to include something else how is that fair.
Indeed do heterosexuals still have rights and need protecting even though they are the majority.:shifty:

[HenryDorsetCase]

Re Ed. Ya meanie i have often found him to say what a lot of people may think but do not speak out.
But back to the subject I must say i was not bothered, no opinion either way really, by the thought of Marriage rights.....
Until it was pointed out what is happening is actually a fundamental change to what the word means.
A word that has meant something for over 20000 years (a Man and a Women)suddenly has to be made to mean something else....

Well sorry even if it puts me in the minority i think that is not right.

"Marriage" as a concept in western cultural and political and sexual philosophy has been a moving feast since at least the Enlightenment. One example: Marriage used to include a concept whereby a wife's property rights were subsumed into her husbands property. In effect the wife was a chattel. Is that what "marriage" means now? Of course it isn't. This change is the latest in a changing institution.

And "marriage" to a muslim and a hindu are different things again:

You need to admit it: you are skeeved out by gay people. And thats YOUR problem.

[HenryDorsetCase]

red heering alert
Sorry i don't see how it is a basic human right to have everything that hetosexuals have esp when you consider there is already principals in place so as to safeguard the property right's, employments rights religious beliefs etc.

Why does a word meaning (marriage)that was never ever intended to mean anything other than the uniting of a Male and female and had been the case for thousands of years no have to be made to change now to include something else how is that fair.
Indeed do heterosexuals still have rights and need protecting even though they are the majority.:shifty:

How does me marrying my life partner affect YOUR marriage again?

[husaberg]

"Marriage" as a concept in western cultural and political and sexual philosophy has been a moving feast since at least the Enlightenment. One example: Marriage used to include a concept whereby a wife's property rights were subsumed into her husbands property. In effect the wife was a chattel. Is that what "marriage" means now? Of course it isn't. This change is the latest in a changing institution.

And "marriage" to a muslim and a hindu are different things again:

You need to admit it: you are skeeved out by gay people. And thats YOUR problem.

Er... i could be for all i know. but as i have no idea what it means....what is "Skeeved"

take away weather Gay marriage it is right or wrong or weather any opinion is less valid or wrong.
The word marriage has for thousands of years been the joining of a man and a Women.
just as the Word Homosexual is the relationship of two people of the same sex.

if you read my posts above you will see i never actually was fundamentally opposed to it just the word meaning being changed.


Re Ed. Ya meanie i have often found him to say what a lot of people may think but do not speak out.
But back to the subject I must say i was not bothered, no opinion either way really, by the thought of Marriage rights.....
Until it was pointed out what is happening is actually a fundamental change to what the word means.
A word that has meant something for over 20000 years (a Man and a Women)suddenly has to be made to mean something else....

Well sorry even if it puts me in the minority i think that is not right.

Aren't they already in a special group of society group anyway?

Not meaning to be controversial or say its wrong or anything. because it how they choose to life ie either their choice and or who they are.I'm ok with that.
but it is by no means the norm of society anyway. lets be clear here.


How does me marrying my life partner affect YOUR marriage again?

Not sure how i am expected to answer that.......so i will answer that with whats so wrong with Civil Union.

[mashman]

The word marriage has for thousands of years been the joining of a man and a Women.

the joining of a man to a (wo)man.

[mashman]

Married Bum Sex.


Sorry what was the question?

What should a wife be legally entitled to give her husband? Have fun

[FJRider]

red heering alert
Sorry i don't see how it is a basic human right to have everything that hetosexuals have esp when you consider there is already principals in place so as to safeguard the property right's, employments rights religious beliefs etc.



So ... if it has nothing to do with "Rights" ... then it is only legislation or law that is the issue. As such ... are drafted by the opinions and views of society.
Actually ... drafted by the representitives of that society ... that have been voted by majority ... into Goverment.

[husaberg]

So ... if it has nothing to do with "Rights" ... then it is only legislation or law that is the issue. As such ... are drafted by the opinions and views of society.
Actually ... drafted by the representitives of that society ... that have been voted by majority ... into Goverment.


Gee don't get me started on the current Government as my tin foil hat is in the wash...
Er we don't have a majority government we have a collection of self serving politicians.
Being held together in a real unholy union based on power and greed.
Just like the Asset sales has no mandate.
Like the how many million was given to the Maori party for supply and confidence that was given direct to the party.
Yes that was missed by most as well. Think it was about 150 million.

[FJRider]

Gee don't get me started on the current Government as my tin foil hat is in the wash...


Perhaps ... more people may want to vote in the next election then ... because the current goverment is calling the shots ...

[Tigadee]

Wasn't there a time when 'civil union' itself had to be fought hard for?

[husaberg]

Yeah its Wiki


Civil union has been legal in New Zealand since 26 April 2005. The Civil Union Act 2004 to establish the institution of civil union for same-sex and opposite-sex couples was passed by the Parliament on 9 December 2004.[1][2] The Act has been described as very similar to the Marriage Act 1955 with references to "marriage" replaced by "civil union". A companion bill, the Relationships (Statutory References) Act, was passed shortly thereafter on 15 March 2005, to remove discriminatory provisions on the basis of relationship status from a range of statutes and regulations. As a result of these bills, all couples in New Zealand, whether married, in a civil union, or in a de facto partnership, now generally enjoy the same rights and undertake the same obligations. These rights extend to immigration, next-of-kin status, social welfare, matrimonial property and other areas. Non-married couples are not however permitted to adopt children, although people in non-marital relationships can adopt as individuals.[3]

[oldrider]

Wasn't there a time when 'civil union' itself had to be fought hard for?

Yeah, well that was what I thought too and as they had their own (gay?) prime minister and (gay) Labour government calling the shots, that was it!

I really thought Civil Union was the real deal for them and that they at last had everything that they wanted but no, now they want it to be called Marriage!

They will get their way on this and like Madness said, the sky wont fall down for the rest of us but what will the next thing be and will it ever end!

The pendulum will swing across and the heterosexual minority will be screaming about some injustice imposed by the homosexual majority!

By then there will probably be another world war for us all to join together and fight some "common enemy" Probably in the Pacific too! ... Life I guess! :facepalm:

[short-circuit]

Yeah, well that was what I thought too and as they had their own (gay?) prime minister and (gay) Labour government calling the shots, that was it!

I really thought Civil Union was the real deal for them and that they at last had everything that they wanted but no, now they want it to be called Marriage!

They will get their way on this and like Madness said, the sky wont fall down for the rest of us but what will the next thing be and will it ever end!

The pendulum will swing across and the heterosexual minority will be screaming about some injustice imposed by the homosexual majority!

By then there will probably be another world war for us all to join together and fight some "common enemy"! ... Life I guess! :facepalm:


http://i795.photobucket.com/albums/yy239/blkst3/senility-grandpa-demotivational-poster-1263353826.jpg

[oldrider]

Short circuit: is an "abnormal" connection! ... Nuff said really but I did think your post effort was funny though. :lol:

[SMOKEU]

What would Hitler say?

[Virago]

What would Hitler say?

Gib es mir, großer Junge.

[oldrider]

Gib es mir, großer Junge.

Typically camp! :mellow:

[Virago]

Typically camp! :mellow:

Mein Kampf?

[husaberg]

The sexuality of Adolf Hitler has long been a matter of historical and scholarly debate. Despite the Nazi Party's opposition to homosexuality and persecution of homosexuals, some historians have argued that Hitler himself was homosexual or bisexual. Some have argued that he was asexual, whereas others dismiss these claims and believe he was heterosexual. He is believed to have had six female lovers; two of these women went on to commit suicide, and a further two attempted it.



http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERraubal.jpg

Geli Raubal
the daughter of Leo Raubal and Angela Raubal, was born in Linz on 4th June, 1908. When Adolf Hitler rented a house in Obersalzberg he asked his half-sister, Angela Raubal, now a widow, to be his housekeeper. She agreed and in August 1928 brought Geli with her to stay with Hitler.

Hitler, who had now turned forty, became infatuated with Geli and rumours soon spread that he was having an affair with his young niece. Hitler became extremely possessive and Emil Maurice, his chauffeur, who also showed interest in Geli, was sacked.

The couple lived together for over two years. The relationship with Geli was stormy and they began to accuse each other of being unfaithful. Geli was particularly concerned about Eva Braun, a seventeen-year-old girl who Hitler took for rides in his Mercedes car.

Geli also complained about the way Hitler controlled her life. On September 8, 1931, Hitler left for Hamburg after having a blazing row with Geli over her desire to spend some time in Vienna. Hitler was heard to shout at Geli as he was about to get into his car: "For the last time, no!" After he left Geli shot herself through the heart with a revolver.

When he heard the news Hitler threatened to take his own life but was talked out of it by senior members of the Nazi Party. One consequence of Geli's suicide was that Hitler became a vegetarian. He claimed that meat now reminded him of Geli's corpse.

Rumours about Geli's death spread quickly amongst Hitler's enemies. It was said that Geli had been badly beaten up by Hitler before she shot herself. Another story involved Geli committing suicide because she was expecting Hitler's child. Some people claimed she was murdered by Heinrich Himmler because she was threatening to blackmail Hitler. Little evidence has been provided to support these suggestions and the reasons for her death remain a mystery.

Homosexuality Hitler

During his disavowal of Ernst Röhm, Hitler cited his 'immoral sexual behavior'. However, Röhm had long been a confidant and close friend to Hitler, and Hitler had never objected in the past to Röhm's homosexuality. (Röhm-Putsch).[2] Hitler also sent a great number of homosexuals to concentration camps during the Holocaust. Jonathan Zimmerman, a historian at New York University, points out that "Between 1933 and 1945, the Nazis arrested roughly 100,000 men as homosexuals. Most convicted gays were sent to prison; between 5,000 and 15,000 were interned in concentration camps, where they wore pink triangles to signify their supposed crime."[3] Gay men were singled out for cruel treatment in the concentration camps. Nazi doctors often used gay men for scientific experiments in an attempt to locate a biological basis for homosexuality, purportedly to "cure" any future Aryan children who were gay. A study by Rüdiger Lautmann found that 60% of gay men in concentration camps died, as compared to 41% of political prisoners and 35% of Jehovah's Witnesses. The study also shows that survival rates for gay men were slightly higher for internees from the middle and upper classes and for married bisexual men and those with children

Eva Anna Paula Hitler (née Braun; 6 February 1912 – 30 April 1945) was the longtime companion of Adolf Hitler and, for less than 40 hours, his wife. Braun met Hitler in Munich when she was 17 years old, while she was working as an assistant and model for his personal photographer, and began seeing him often about two years later. She attempted suicide twice during their early relationship. By 1936, she was a part of his household at the Berghof near Berchtesgaden and lived a sheltered life throughout World War II. Braun was a photographer, and many of the surviving colour photographs and films of Hitler were taken by her. She was a key figure within Hitler's inner social circle, but did not attend public events with him until mid-1944, when her sister Gretl married Hermann Fegelein, the SS liaison officer on his staff.

As the Third Reich collapsed towards the end of the war, Braun swore loyalty to Hitler and went to Berlin to be by his side in the heavily reinforced Führerbunker beneath the Reich Chancellery. As Red Army troops fought their way into the neighbourhood on 29 April 1945, she married Hitler during a brief civil ceremony; she was 33 and he was 56. Less than 40 hours later, they committed suicide together in a sitting room of the bunker, she by biting into a capsule of cyanide. The German public was unaware of Braun's relationship with Hitler until after her death.

Either way Hitler was a prize prick.
But he was someones child and no doubt they loved him dearly.......
Also in fairness to the other minorites Hilter regime also oversaw the deaths of ....


Polish
Nazi crimes against ethnic Poles
The Nazi occupation of Poland was one of the most brutal episodes of the war, resulting in more than two million deaths, not including some three million Polish Jews. The five million Poles killed, Jewish, Roman Catholic and Orthodox, accounted for 14% of the country's population.Poles were one of Hitler's first targets of extermination, as outlined in the speech he gave to Wehrmacht commanders before the invasion of Poland in 1939. The intelligentsia and socially prominent or influential people were primarily targeted, although mass murders were committed against the general Polish population, as well as against other groups of Slavs. Hundreds of thousands of Roman Catholic and Orthodox Poles were sent to Auschwitz and the other concentration camps, the intelligentsia were the first targets of the Einsatzgruppen death squads.

Soviet Slavs and POWs
Nazi crimes against Soviet POWs, and OST-Arbeiter
During Operation Barbarossa, the Axis invasion of the Soviet Union, millions of Red Army prisoners of war (POWs) were arbitrarily executed in the field by the invading German armies (in particular by the Waffen SS), died under inhuman conditions in German prisoner of war camps and during death marches, or were shipped to concentration camps for execution. The Germans killed an estimated 2.8 million Soviet POWs through starvation, exposure and summary execution, in a mere eight months over 1941 and 1942. According to the US Holocaust Museum, by the winter of 1941, "starvation and disease resulted in mass death of unimaginable proportions". Up to 500,000 were killed in the concentration camps.

Soviet civilian populations in the occupied areas were also heavily persecuted (in addition to the barbarity of the Eastern Front frontline warfare manifesting itself in episodes such as the siege of Leningrad in which more than 1.2 million civilians died). Thousands of peasant villages across Russia, Belarus and Ukraine were annihilated by German troops. During the occupation, Russia's Leningrad, Pskov and Novgorod region lost around a quarter of its population. Some estimate that as many as one quarter of all Soviet civilian deaths (five million Russian, three million Ukrainian and 1.5 million Belarusian) deaths at the hands of the Nazis and their allies were racially motivated. The Russian Academy of Science in 1995 reported civilian victims in the USSR, including Jews at German hands, totaled 13.7 million dead, 20% of the 68 million persons in the occupied USSR, including 7.4 million victims of Nazi genocide and reprisals; 2.2 million deaths of persons deported to Germany for forced labor; and 4.1 million famine and disease deaths in occupied territory. There were an additional estimated 3.0 million famine deaths in the territory not under German occupation. These losses are for the entire territory of the USSR in its 1946–1991 borders, including territories annexed in 1939–40. The deaths of 8.2 million Soviet civilians including Jews, were documented by the Soviet Extraordinary State Commission


Romanies (Gypsies)
The Nazi genocide of Gypsies identified within the term, 'Porrajmos' was largely ignored by scholars until the 1980s, The problem with the research into the assault upon the Gypsies has so far shown that both Roma, Lalleri and Sinti, as sub-Groups of the Gypsy peoples, were a target for Hitler and his Nazi murder apparatus. This however, does not seek to include those Travellers, Itinerant or even Beggars, who were plucked from Towns and Cities and grouped together with the Gypsy people to be murdered. The death toll of Romanies (Roma (Romani subgroup), Sinti, and Manush) in the Holocaust has been assessed at some 500,000 People. As with the Final Murder Total for the Jews, Conservatively estimated to be 6,000,000, we will never know the exact Death Toll for the Gypsy, let alone for the Jews. The Gypsies as smaller contingent of what Hitler classed as undesireables, took a heavy toll of their nomadic presence within Europe.[15] Hitler's campaign of genocide against the Romani population of Europe involved a particularly bizarre application of Nazi "racial hygiene" (or a type of selective breeding). Countless tens of thousands of Gypsies were deported and gassed in the Death Camps, and Auschwitz and Treblinka have accurate records of their being murdered there.

Disabled people
Following a eugenics policy, the Nazis believed that the disabled were a burden to society because they needed to be cared for by others; they were also considered an affront to Nazi notions of a society peopled by a perfect, superhuman Aryan race. Around 375,000 individuals were sterilized against their will because of their disabilities.

People with disabilities were also among the first to be killed by the Nazis; the United States Holocaust Memorial museum notes that the T-4 Euthanasia Program, established in 1939, became the "model" for future exterminations by the Nazi regime, and set a precedent for their attempted Jewish genocide. The T-4 Program was established in order to maintain the "purity" of the so-called Aryan race by systematically killing children and adults born with physical deformities or suffering from mental illness; this included use of the first gas chambers. Although Hitler formally ordered a halt to the T-4 program in late August 1941, the killings secretly continued until the war’s end, resulting in the murder of an estimated 275,000 people with disabilities

Freemasons
The Nazis claimed that high degree Masons were willing members of "the Jewish conspiracy" and that Freemasonry was one of the causes of Germany's defeat in WWI. The preserved records of the RSHA (Reichssicherheitshauptamt – Office of the High Command of Security Service pursuing the racial objectives of the SS through Race and Resettlement Office), show the persecution of the Freemasons. The number of Freemasons from Nazi occupied countries who were killed is not accurately known, but it is estimated that between 80,000 and 200,000 were murdered.

[oldrider]

Meanwhile back in 2012? .... Expectant stakeholders anxiously wait! :wait:

[blairnz]

They will get their way on this and like Madness said, the sky wont fall down for the rest of us but what will the next thing be and will it ever end!

It's true! It will keep on going and going until they're treated equally! How dare they?!

[superman]

For those of you saying Civil Union and Marriage entitles the same rights...

So what?
Heterosexuals can be in a defacto relationship, civil union, or marriage and be treated the same by the state.
Homosexuals can be in a defacto relationship or civil union.

Basically giving homosexuals the rights of marriage but refusing to call it marriage is false generosity.
Here are your rights but we're uncomfortable in calling your partnership a marriage so you can be 'civil unioned'.

When you meet people do you want to say you're married, or civil unioned? Do you want to call them your wife/husband or civil partner?

For those spouting that marriage has been heterosexual for thousands of years... Even if it were true an argument from tradition is a logical fallacy. IE if X is traditional it is better than Y. You have to state reasons why it's better to keep marriage as exclusive for heterosexuals, as far as I'm concerned I haven't heard any good, rational arguments against it.

Today marriage no longer involves the binding of man with property, the brides family doesn't have to pay the groom a dowry, the soul purpose of marriage isn't children, there's no such thing as illegitimate children in our society any more. Marriage has become the binding of people who are simply in love, which I thinks great. So allow those who love eachother to marry and stop with all the anger, hate and bigotry.

[HenryDorsetCase]

The sexuality of Adolf Hitler has long been a matter of historical and scholarly debate. ...

that seems like a lot of trouble to go to to invoke Godwins Law. I'm just saying.

[HenryDorsetCase]

F Even if it were true an argument from tradition is a logical fallacy. IE if X is traditional it is better than Y..

I dunno, man. It allows Harley Davidson to sell a lot of Harley Davidsons.

[husaberg]

that seems like a lot of trouble to go to to invoke Godwins Law. I'm just saying.

Wasn't me. I just put it in context. Someone else invoked the Godwin analogy.


Mein Kampf?


What would Hitler say?


Gib es mir, großer Junge.

But to tell you the truth i think the analogy is flawed. It should now be the thread is dead when someone quotes the Godwin theory:yes:

[oldrider]

For those of you saying Civil Union and Marriage entitles the same rights...

So what?
Heterosexuals can be in a defacto relationship, civil union, or marriage and be treated the same by the state.
Homosexuals can be in a defacto relationship or civil union.

Basically giving homosexuals the rights of marriage but refusing to call it marriage is false generosity.
Here are your rights but we're uncomfortable in calling your partnership a marriage so you can be 'civil unioned'.

When you meet people do you want to say you're married, or civil unioned? Do you want to call them your wife/husband or civil partner?

For those spouting that marriage has been heterosexual for thousands of years... Even if it were true an argument from tradition is a logical fallacy. IE if X is traditional it is better than Y. You have to state reasons why it's better to keep marriage as exclusive for heterosexuals, as far as I'm concerned I haven't heard any good, rational arguments against it.

Today marriage no longer involves the binding of man with property, the brides family doesn't have to pay the groom a dowry, the soul purpose of marriage isn't children, there's no such thing as illegitimate children in our society any more. Marriage has become the binding of people who are simply in love, which I thinks great. So allow those who love eachother to marry and stop with all the anger, hate and bigotry.


When you meet people do you want to say you're married, or civil unioned? Do you want to call them your wife/husband or civil partner?

Good point actually, simple but true!

I have been thinking about this from the point of view of a person in a Civil Union and have to admit that it does sound a bit daft I.E.

My partner and I have been Civil unioned now for 48 years instead of married for 48 years! :mellow:

I disagree that anyone with a contrary view should automatically be branded as full of anger, hate and bigitory, it does nothing to sell your argument either!

Actually I have learned quite a lot out of this thread despite the large proportion of emotional crap thrown around but of course that is the way of KB.

When the dust settles (and that will only happen if the bill is passed) I will be interested to see just what harm/benefit it does (if any) to the "status quo"! :corn:

True! Marriage of today can not really be compared to marriage of yesterday, it is indeed a completely different beast and has changed considerably even in the last 20 years.

My feeling is (as previously stated) that the politicians will pass the bill anyway.

[HenryDorsetCase]

most marriages could best be described as "uncivil unions" couldnt they?

[Drew]

most marriages could best be described as "uncivil unions" couldnt they?


Yip, gender doesn't come into that.

[Road kill]

most marriages could best be described as "uncivil unions" couldnt they?

How do you work that out ?

[Drew]

How do you work that out ?

Read what he said a couple times, and try not over think it.

[oldrider]

most marriages could best be described as "uncivil unions" couldnt they?

Unfortunately that is probably true these days, so why do those that don't have it want it so much? :confused: I'm still a bit confused by that! :yes:

[mashman]

Unfortunately that is probably true these days, so why do those that don't have it want it so much? :confused: I'm still a bit confused by that! :yes:

Are you saying that people get married just so that they can get a divorce?

[Winston001]

For those of you saying Civil Union and Marriage entitles the same rights...

So what?


Basically giving homosexuals the rights of marriage but refusing to call it marriage is false generosity.
Here are your rights but we're uncomfortable in calling your partnership a marriage so you can be 'civil unioned'.


For those spouting that marriage has been heterosexual for thousands of years... Even if it were true an argument from tradition is a logical fallacy.



You make good points.

In New Zealand the concept of marriage has become very blurred with civil union and de facto couples having almost exactly the same rights and obligations. So why not abolish marriage as a legal concept altogether? Clearly it serves no useful purpose any more.

Lets just have civil unions for everyone and de facto for those who want to live with their nieces... ;)

[husaberg]

For those of you saying Civil Union and Marriage entitles the same rights...

So what?
Heterosexuals can be in a defacto relationship, civil union, or marriage and be treated the same by the state.
Homosexuals can be in a defacto relationship or civil union.

Basically giving homosexuals the rights of marriage but refusing to call it marriage is false generosity.
Here are your rights but we're uncomfortable in calling your partnership a marriage so you can be 'civil unioned'.

When you meet people do you want to say you're married, or civil unioned? Do you want to call them your wife/husband or civil partner?

For those spouting that marriage has been heterosexual for thousands of years... Even if it were true an argument from tradition is a logical fallacy. IE if X is traditional it is better than Y. You have to state reasons why it's better to keep marriage as exclusive for heterosexuals, as far as I'm concerned I haven't heard any good, rational arguments against it.




You make good points.

In New Zealand the concept of marriage has become very blurred with civil union and de facto couples having almost exactly the same rights and obligations. So why not abolish marriage as a legal concept altogether? Clearly it serves no useful purpose any more.



Mmm.... food for thought some great points but....


You argue against tradition but yet somehow say it time to change the rules so more people can become part of one of histories longer lived ones. Marriage.
So whats up with that.
If traditions are so bad why do people what to be part of them.

As i have said before on the whole i have no problem with it, but its the use of the word. The changes meaning that this entails so maybe i am just a dinosaur.

[superman]

Mmm.... food for thought some great points but....


You argue against tradition but yet somehow say it time to change the rules so more people can become part of one of histories longer lived ones. Marriage.

It was a long lived institution for select families to run empires and countries. The name of equality has tried to give split power to all people within a country, extending this institution of voting to women despite it being 'non-traditional' does not ruin the tradition of running a country despite voting having always been carried out by males. The institution of voting was also not diminished when it was extended from male land owners to all males.

No doubt it was diminished in socially conservative eyes... but I don't see it as workable to think of anything as rigid in human culture.

[husaberg]

It was a long lived institution for select families to run empires and countries. The name of equality has tried to give split power to all people within a country, extending this institution of voting to women despite it being 'non-traditional' does not ruin the tradition of running a country despite voting having always been carried out by males. The institution of voting was also not diminished when it was extended from male land owners to all males.

No doubt it was diminished in socially conservative eyes... but I don't see it as workable to think of anything as rigid in human culture.

Neither do i but do you see where i are coming from. I can honstly say that the i don't think the use of the word Marriage to be socially unjust like the examples you have presented. That's my opinion and i accept other peoples will vary greatly from this.

A question, at the end of a civil union ceremony. What do they declare the participants. I can honestly say I have no idea?

Are they not husband and wife , husband and husband,wife and wife for each individual situation or are they solely declared partners?

Ie the terms Husband and the term Wife exclusive only to marriage?

[superman]

Neither do i but do you see where i are coming from.

A question at the end of of a civil union ceremony what do they declare the participants i can honestly say i don't know?

Re they not husband and wife , husband and husband,wife and wife for each individual situation or are they solely declared partners?
Ie the terms Husband and the term Wife exclusive only to marriage?

"The legal requirements are:


The marriage must be performed in the presence of a Registered Marriage or Civil Union Celebrant or Registrar of Marriages at one of the places specified on the marriage licence.
The full legal names of both parties to the marriage must be stated somewhere in the ceremony.
The marriage must be performed in the presence of at least two witnesses; and
During the ceremony, and before at least two witnesses, each party must say the words "I AB take you CD, to be my legal wife/husband" or words to similar effect.
Both parties, witnesses and Marriage Celebrant/Registrar sign the registration forms"


'words to similar effect' is very vague...

[husaberg]

"The legal requirements are:


The marriage must be performed in the presence of a Registered Marriage or Civil Union Celebrant or Registrar of Marriages at one of the places specified on the marriage licence.
The full legal names of both parties to the marriage must be stated somewhere in the ceremony.
The marriage must be performed in the presence of at least two witnesses; and
During the ceremony, and before at least two witnesses, each party must say the words "I AB take you CD, to be my legal wife/husband" or words to similar effect.
Both parties, witnesses and Marriage Celebrant/Registrar sign the registration forms"


'words to similar effect' is very vague...

I guess that's actually a Marriage you quoting.

here below is the rules relating to a Civil union it looks like the legal term is solely partner so i can understand why people may find it a bit half arsed.
http://www.dia.govt.nz/diawebsite.nsf/wpg_URL/Services-Births-Deaths-and-Marriages-Civil-Union?OpenDocument

[allycatz]

Why can't marriages in churches be called that and marriage by any other means eg registry office, a civil union. As long as it doesnt become legal to marry the family dog, who blardy cares!

[oneofsix]

WTF has the church or state got to do with marriage anyhow. The church can bless the union of two, or more, of its members if it wants and can have its own believes around that. The state only needs to know that a couple (or more) are now a single legal entity so providing that is register as such, like a mini limited liability company then the state should be happy and keep its nose out of it, call it a registered union.
Marriage is a special bond between the people involved and is not reliant on any outside organisation, more reliant on the families and friends of those involved than religion, cult or state.
If and when kids come along they register that they, as the registered union, are responsible for them, your choice whether you consider them liabilities or assets ;)
Marriage involves leave others to be with the chosen, declaring such, and cleaving with the chosen partner to become a single unit.

The trouble with this law's chosen course is that once they have the state given right to marry they will try to use the state's anti-discrimination laws to try and force others such as churches to recognise their 'marriage' and perform the ceremony. How the hell you can want a group that doesn't like you to perform the ceremony is beyond me but I guess it is no different from a traditional bride deciding she likes the look of that cute church she has never been to and being upset when the priest tells her to take a long walk off a short pier.

[Tigadee]

The trouble with this law's chosen course is that once they have the state given right to marry they will try to use the state's anti-discrimination laws to try and force others such as churches to recognise their 'marriage' and perform the ceremony. How the hell you can want a group that doesn't like you to perform the ceremony is beyond me but I guess it is no different from a traditional bride deciding she likes the look of that cute church she has never been to and being upset when the priest tells her to take a long walk off a short pier.

Don't see how that would happen... Isn't it discriminatory to force a group to marry non-members of that group in their ways? It'll be like me forcing a synaggoge [pardon my atrocious spelling of a word I've only used once in my whole life] to perform a bar mitzvah for me just 'cos I like it, even though I'm not joining their faith, not circumcised or not giving up pork.

[allycatz]

Isn't marriage in a church meant to be like a christening in that you are married or accepted as part of a christian family....as in marriage between god and couple. Is marriage a church word that has evolved into being used for all examples of wedlock? ps I'm not remotely religious, just wondering how it all evolved is all

[ducatilover]

Isn't marriage in a church meant to be like a christening in that you are married or accepted as part of a christian family....as in marriage between god and couple. Is marriage a church word that has evolved into being used for all examples of wedlock? ps I'm not remotely religious, just wondering how it all evolved is all

No, marriage pre-dates written history and christianity

[Virago]

...The trouble with this law's chosen course is that once they have the state given right to marry they will try to use the state's anti-discrimination laws to try and force others such as churches to recognise their 'marriage' and perform the ceremony...

Yet another red herring. Any marriage celebrant has the right of refusal - they cannot be "forced" to marry anyone. Any suggestion that this will change is simply nonsense.

[Tigadee]

We'll see how true that holds in a few years time...

[98tls]

No, marriage pre-dates written history and christianity

You read that?

[ducatilover]

You read that?

In actual Maori writing


Honest

[BoristheBiter]

Yet another red herring. Any marriage celebrant has the right of refusal - they cannot be "forced" to marry anyone. Any suggestion that this will change is simply nonsense.

I just heard on the news this morning that there are people that have either been fired or contracts are not being renewed due to not preforming same sex marriage.

What they have said is that the person refused to preform a marriage or civil union based on their beliefs were fired for discrimination.
So now they have taken their action to court as they were discriminated against because of their beliefs.

So yes I guess you are technically right that they can't be forced to marry anyone just like you can't force anyone to think its right or preform one.

[oldrider]

I just heard on the news this morning that there are people that have either been fired or contracts are not being renewed due to not preforming same sex marriage.

What they have said is that the person refused to preform a marriage or civil union based on their beliefs were fired for discrimination.
So now they have taken their action to court as they were discriminated against because of their beliefs.

So yes I guess you are technically right that they can't be forced to marry anyone just like you can't force anyone to think its right or preform one.

That reads like the bill doubles as a make work scheme for lawyers and the legal system! :rolleyes:

[BoristheBiter]

That reads like the bill doubles as a make work scheme for lawyers and the legal system! :rolleyes:

Who do you think writes them in the first place.

[avgas]

You read that?
http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0593d28ca900.jpg

Last time I check stuff was happening more than 2500 years ago.........

[oldrider]

Who do you think writes them in the first place.

Well I have a friend who's job (in parliament) it was to write up legislation like this and I also have friends who are lawyers and their job is to challenge the legal meaning of what is written!

[ducatilover]

Last time I check stuff was happening more than 2500 years ago.........

My theory is you don't know how to bake cookies.

[Fatjim]

No, marriage pre-dates written history and christianity

Whats predating got to do with it?

The moriori predated the Maori, and we don't see the Maori falling over backwards to give NZ back, and nor should we.


The debate is about our current standards, way of life, and whether we are prepared to change the structure of our society. Not what would Jesus's Great Grandfather do.

[Fatjim]

How the hell you can want a group that doesn't like you to perform the ceremony is beyond me....

Spoken like a rational person, but unfortunately rational doesn't count. Many Churches stood/stand against Gays in leadership, soem very strongly, yet many Gays stayed and forced the issue.

I would say though that in general the like/dislike isn't around the person, rather than the theology, which is after all, what curches are about.

We can't force female Gyms to accept man. We can't wear war medals if we don't deserve to, we can't get cheap bus fares if we are middle aged and employed. We can't get free health care if we aren't children. All forms of "discrimiation" that are allowed, and quite frankly should be.

To say to a church that it can't practice what its basic tenants teach is always going to be a difficult discussion. At what point does a religious teaching cross from acceptable to unacceptable within the wider community. Some "religions" and cultures practice what we call under age sex, some practice sex and sexual orientation discrimination against leadership, What if a religion based upon polygamy starts to get mainstream attention, is that going to be the next issue we have to deal with? What is right or wrong? Pre Christianity, the practice of polygamy was common, and some existing cultures still practice it. Those of us without strong traditional NZ moral convictions will say there is nothing wrong with it, and ask what is the basis to ban it?

[BoristheBiter]

Spoken like a rational person, but unfortunately rational doesn't count. Many Churches stood/stand against Gays in leadership, soem very strongly, yet many Gays stayed and forced the issue.

I would say though that in general the like/dislike isn't around the person, rather than the theology, which is after all, what curches are about.

We can't force female Gyms to accept man. We can't wear war medals if we don't deserve to, we can't get cheap bus fares if we are middle aged and employed. We can't get free health care if we aren't children. All forms of "discrimiation" that are allowed, and quite frankly should be.



No but they forced men's clubs to except women.

[oneofsix]

Spoken like a rational person, but unfortunately rational doesn't count. Many Churches stood/stand against Gays in leadership, soem very strongly, yet many Gays stayed and forced the issue.

I would say though that in general the like/dislike isn't around the person, rather than the theology, which is after all, what curches are about.

We can't force female Gyms to accept man. We can't wear war medals if we don't deserve to, we can't get cheap bus fares if we are middle aged and employed. We can't get free health care if we aren't children. All forms of "discrimiation" that are allowed, and quite frankly should be.

To say to a church that it can't practice what its basic tenants teach is always going to be a difficult discussion. At what point does a religious teaching cross from acceptable to unacceptable within the wider community. Some "religions" and cultures practice what we call under age sex, some practice sex and sexual orientation discrimination against leadership, What if a religion based upon polygamy starts to get mainstream attention, is that going to be the next issue we have to deal with? What is right or wrong? Pre Christianity, the practice of polygamy was common, and some existing cultures still practice it. Those of us without strong traditional NZ moral convictions will say there is nothing wrong with it, and ask what is the basis to ban it?

That is too logical a post not to reply.

You say we can't force female gyms to accept males however I suspect this is more a case of the him not bothering. Either way This isn't one of the discriminations that should be allowed its just one that happens, the females sure kick up enough fuss if you set up a male only club. The others you list are good discriminations however I suspect you will find the issue with wearing medals was around fraud not discrimination.

Funnily enough we, as a country, are more likely to accept non-Christian religions discrimination against woman or races than we are the Christian churches refusing to marry gays. We already allow musilm woman to wear veils were we wont allow youths to wear hoodies. The Musilms can say what the fuck they like about the veil but once you start telling some one what they can and can't wear based on their gender then they are being discriminated against.

Oh well I go back to my statement that marriage has nothing to do with church or state. The state needs to register the joint liability arrangement, the church (term used to includes mosques etc) can bless or not according to its beliefs.

[oldrider]

No but they forced men's clubs to except women.

I think that was caused by dual pressure, the clubs needed to boost membership as well so it was convenient to capitulate.

Besides it was a good move too! :yes:

[BoristheBiter]

I think that was caused by dual pressure, the clubs needed to boost membership as well so it was convenient to capitulate.

Besides it was a good move too! :yes:

Yeah Auguster really struggles from not allowing women members. (but they have just buckled to pressure)

Can't say I had ever been to a working men's clubs and it was quite.

Like OOS said above it's more like we just don't care.

[Fatjim]

i think you are right, and why don't we care? Because we generally have the nous and drive to go do something else that we want to do, rather than make everybody else fold to our way of thinking. In the end it doesn't matter, life is too short, and there is so much fun shit out there, that if we lose the right to go have a quiet smoke and drink without women around, (much as that sounds nice and peaceful occasionally) who cares enough to fight for it?

[oneofsix]

i think you are right, and why don't we care? Because we generally have the nous and drive to go do something else that we want to do, rather than make everybody else fold to our way of thinking. In the end it doesn't matter, life is too short, and there is so much fun shit out there, that if we lose the right to go have a quiet smoke and drink without women around, (much as that sounds nice and peaceful occasionally) who cares enough to fight for it?

We haven't lost the right, just a place or two. This is why males tend to do adventurous stuff and take their booze and smokes with them.
Sad thing is as long as they worry about what the males are doing the females will always be playing catch-up. Some of the biggest things holding back females are other females, it isn't the males that say they can't ride bikes, race bikes etc rather the other woman that do the whole "you do what?!" type of thing. Yeah there are a few losers males out there that get all red necked about it but the vast majority just aren't threatened and enjoy some female company.

[superman]

We haven't lost the right, just a place or two. This is why males tend to do adventurous stuff and take their booze and smokes with them.
Sad thing is as long as they worry about what the males are doing the females will always be playing catch-up. Some of the biggest things holding back females are other females, it isn't the males that say they can't ride bikes, race bikes etc rather the other woman that do the whole "you do what?!" type of thing. Yeah there are a few losers males out there that get all red necked about it but the vast majority just aren't threatened and enjoy some female company.

It's ingrained to them from a young age, that they are totally different from males. Societal gender roles play a huge part.

[oneofsix]

It's ingrained to them from a young age, that they are totally different from males. Societal gender roles play a huge part.

I don't totally agree. Yes gender roles can be taught and in other societies this is done. In NZ it is open for every kid to chose their own course, this being tempered by their parents and groups they associate with, go to most modern religions and you will be assigned gender roles.
However having bought up kids of both genders and allowed them to make their own choices the different genders do naturally gravate towards certain norms, give a boy a Barbie doll and see how long it takes before it is either headless or flying like superman, give a girl a dump truck and she will use it to carry dolls or start prettying it up or even treat it as if it was a doll. Both will spend some time playing with the toys as designed but their gender personality will show.
As to men not caring perhaps we have had enough or perhaps it is because we care but losing fredoms for ourselves and or kids but ..

Security has been beefed up for the opening of a controversial women-only exhibition at The Dowse tomorrow.

The exhibition opens at 10am tomorrow despite complaints about the women-only polic, which resulted in mediation with the Human Rights Commission on Thursday.

Lower Hutt man Paul Young complained to the Commission over the display, threatening to test the policy by fronting up to try to get in if he was not satisfied with the outcome of mediation, which wound up yesterday.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/7632236/Dowse-prepares-for-worst-ahead-of-exhibit

[superman]

give a boy a Barbie doll and see how long it takes before it is either headless or flying like superman, give a girl a dump truck and she will use it to carry dolls or start prettying it up or even treat it as if it was a doll. Both will spend some time playing with the toys as designed but their gender personality will show.

Yeah that's quite true actually, used to have an ex girlfriend who'd push around her beloved toy car in a pram.

[ducatilover]

Whats predating got to do with it?

The moriori predated the Maori, and we don't see the Maori falling over backwards to give NZ back, and nor should we.


The debate is about our current standards, way of life, and whether we are prepared to change the structure of our society. Not what would Jesus's Great Grandfather do.

:facepalm: 'Twas a simple wee fact, relevant to the quoted post.
What has Maori history got to do with fags and rings?
Interesting, many Maori claim the Moriori were never settled in the main islands on NZ, just the Chatams.
Would be a much easier debate to settle if the Maori had a written language and some form of historical recording.

[Drew]

Would be a much easier debate to settle if the Maori had a written language and some form of historical recording.

Ever played 'Chinese whispers'.

[oldrider]

Would be a much easier debate to settle if the Maori had a written language and some form of historical recording.

Not to worry, some so called Maori academics are rewriting Maori history now, even as we speak and just the way they want it! :shutup:

[ducatilover]

Ever played 'Chinese whispers'. Not the normal way, no... :shifty:


Not to worry, some so called Maori academics are rewriting Maori history now, even as we speak and just the way they want it! :shutup:

I'll join in too :D "left paddle, right paddle, left paddle, cast jaw bone, right paddle"

[oneofsix]

Turns out same sex marriage isn't new in NZ (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/7701409/Suspicious-Looking-Faces-of-crimes-past)

Amy Bock married Agnes Ottoway in what

was to be the "society wedding" of the year, but ended up as one of the greatest cons ever pulled in New Zealand history.
The marriage only lasted a few days - don't know how come it lasted that long.

Just that it in the past it was fraud

[Teflon]

Good for them. I don't associate with their kind, so I don't really care what they do.

I'm pretty sure heavy dead lifts and squats would fix these fuckers..

[Banditbandit]

It has everything to do with the rapid advancement of left wing beliefs among the majority of society which will undoubtedly be the root cause of the eventual collapse of the world as we know it.

Hiow little you know of the left wing. Some of the most prudish, judgemental and downright moralistic people I know are from the left wing. The real amoral people are most usually the Ruling Classes.

Just look at Katie Middleton flopping her tits out in public (snighger). Never see a middle class or working class woman doing that - unless she was on the back of a Harley.

[scumdog]

Just look at Katie Middleton flopping her tits out in public (snighger). Never see a middle class or working class woman doing that - unless she was on the back of a Harley.


I must take a close look in the mirror next time the mrs is on the back of my Harley:devil2:

[oldrider]

I must take a close look in the mirror next time the mrs is on the back of my Harley:devil2:

Last time we rode together I looked .... she's OK! :niceone: (Hang on a mo, she was riding her own bike!) :eek:

[Lindsay2012]

I am not a gay, but I support gay marriage. BTW, a new iphone game The Hobbit: Armies of the Third Age by Kabam (http://www.dotmmo.com/the-hobbit-armies-of-the-third-age-13433.html) is coming, it is called the best RTS game in 2012. Please be patient for this game.

[Berries]

Just look at Katie Middleton flopping her tits out in public (snighger). Never see a middle class or working class woman doing that - unless she was on the back of a Harley.
You move in the wrong circles.

[Madness]

I am not a gay, but I support gay marriage

Welcome to KB Lindsay. Sure you're not just a teeny bit lesbian? :innocent:

[Virago]

Welcome to KB Lindsay. Sure you're not just a teeny bit lesbian? :innocent:

They don't allow 'em in Mumbai...

[mashman]

Welcome to KB Lindsay. Sure you're not just a teeny bit lesbian? :innocent:

If she isn't... perhaps she could turn to you for help in finding the right path

[mashman]

A Hong Kong tycoon has offered a $65 million "marriage bounty" to any man who can win the heart of his lesbian daughter, a report said Wednesday. (http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/world/14967358/h-k-tycoon-offers-fortune-to-marry-off-gay-daughter/)... I'm more than happy to share her with her girlfriend.

[george formby]

A Hong Kong tycoon has offered a $65 million "marriage bounty" to any man who can win the heart of his lesbian daughter, a report said Wednesday. (http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/world/14967358/h-k-tycoon-offers-fortune-to-marry-off-gay-daughter/)... I'm more than happy to share her with her girlfriend.

Beat me too it. I'd have a crack, I can lick me eyebrows you know..:bleh:

[mashman]

Beat me too it. I'd have a crack, I can lick me eyebrows you know..:bleh:

I'm a shoe in then... as I said, I'd be happy with two cracks and you lickin yer own eyebrows ain't likely gonna be what the lass is lookin for :blip:

[oldrider]

Beat me too it. I'd have a crack, I can lick me eyebrows you know..:bleh:

Hey I can lick mine going around the other way! :bleh: If I take my teeth out, I can even comb my hair!! :rolleyes: (What fucking hair?)

[Kickaha]

http://youtu.be/v3S24ofEQj4

[madandy]

^^"this video is currently unavailable"^^

[Virago]

^^"this video is currently unavailable"^^

Works fine for me.

[BoristheBiter]

That's fucking hilarious.
Watch out you never know when the homosexual is about, and it contagious.:laugh:

[mashman]

Homosexual prowler movie

I know I may regret this... but what where you searching for at the time of finding that little gem?

[Kickaha]

I know I may regret this... but what where you searching for at the time of finding that little gem?

Harry Enfield and that was in the sidebar

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjxY9rZwNGU

[Madness]

A step in the right direction for a fairer, more sensible New Zealand.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/8560494/Marriage-equality-bill-passes

Suck on that & weep Ed.

[Wannabiker]

So the OP can now marry Ali Mau and her girlfriend.....if he is a minister, marriage celebrant or someone who is authorised to carry out such a procedure.

[Katman]

The fact that the majority of people in NZ support gay marriage is a sure sign of the rapidly declining societal morals. Gay marriage is extremely wrong. It always has been, and always will be.

I'm going to start calling you Edbear.

[rebel]

So now that hurdle is over, whose putting money down on the next... bestiality, incest, pedophilia?

[Madness]

So now that hurdle is over, whose putting money down on the next... bestiality, incest, pedophilia?

$20 on Cannabis, keen?

[Virago]

So now that hurdle is over, whose putting money down on the next... bestiality, incest, pedophilia?

Euthanasia. You're first...

[Oakie]

So now that hurdle is over, whose putting money down on the next... bestiality, incest, pedophilia?

No one with a reasonable grasp on reality I'd suggest. This whole thing is about love, not sexual deviance.

[Katman]

I wonder how many of those bemoaning the ruination of the sanctity of marriage have been divorced in the past.

[mashman]

So now that hurdle is over, whose putting money down on the next... bestiality, incest, pedophilia?

A personal freedom gained usually results in a personal freedom being lost. With gold dropping in price due to a run sprung by Cyprus selling 400 Euro of gold, it'll likely be something to do with the OBR.